IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA W.P.NO.23260/2018 (GM-KEB) Between:
Padmavathamma S/o Channamma Naidu Aged about 64 years (Senior Citizen benefit not claimed) R/o Bommalinganahally Village Kasba Hobli, Molkalmuru Taluk – 577 535 Chitradurga District. … Petitioner (By Sri. R. Shashidhara, Advocate) And:
1. Assistant Executive Engineer Major, Works Division, KPTCL 400 KV line, 3636, 1st floor KSRTC Depot Road Chitradurga – 577 501.
2. Executive engineer, Major Works Division, KPTCL 400 KV line, 3636, 1st floor KSRTC Depot Road Chitradurga – 577 501. ... Respondents (By Sri. H.V. Devaraju, Advocate for R1 & R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and award passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Misc.No.396/2012 dated 31.1.2014 vide Annex-G.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Misc.No.396/2012 dated 31.01.2014.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the absolute owner of the agricultural land in Sy.No.24 measuring 1 acre and 5 guntas, Sy.No.25 measuring 1 Acre and 23 guntas, Sy.No.26 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas and Sy.No.27 measuring 1 acre and 32 guntas situated at Bommalinganahally Village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chidradurga District.
3. It is contended that the respondents have destroyed the standing crop in the entire 05 acres of land while drawing high tension electricity transmission line in the petitioner’s land. The authorities have determined and paid a compensation of Rs.42,207/-. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed a petition in Miscellaneous Petition No.396/2012 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The said miscellaneous petition stands partly allowed by awarding a total compensation of Rs.17,000/- With interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have not produced the mahazar inasmuch as drawing high tension electric line as to what extent the land was utilized for power transmission. The determination of the compensation for destroying the standing crops is too meager and against the material evidence on record.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned orders submitted that no interference is warranted by this Court as the compensation awarded being just and reasonable.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of D.K.Thimmanna Vs. Executive Engineer and another in W.P.No.40344/2012 C/W W.P.No.40343/2012 (D.D. 31.07.2017) has laid down certain parameters for determining the compensation in identical circumstances, which reads thus;
“6(i) The respondents have not produced the mahazar drawn at the time of erecting the tower and laying the overhead high tension electricity lines. The forum, which has to determine the compensation has to first ascertain the extent of the land utilized for such putting up of tower.
(ii) The mahazar is to be produced for establishing as to what crop was grown and how many standing trees were to be cut and at what height they were cut for the purpose of laying the high tension electricity lines.
(iii) The respondents have not entered the witness box to show to the Additional District Court as to what is the approximate market value of the land. Merely taking the market value at `85,000/- per acre based on the sale statistics provided by the Sub-Registrar is not warranted in such cases. The comparable sale statistics is definitely one of the known methods to determine the market value, but the same cannot be employed to the exclusion of all other methods and more particularly, the capitalization method.
(iv) It is also not known why the interest is paid only at the rate of 6% per annum. In the absence of any other applicable statutes and evolved guidelines, it may be safer for the Additional District Court to follow the factors, which are to be taken into account and the factors which are to be neglected, as prescribed in Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”
8. These parameters are not satisfied in the impugned judgment and award. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and award is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga to reconsider the matter in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made by this Court referred to above. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. The parties are at liberty to lead evidence, if any.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb